You reap what you sow, Dems

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

The article whell posted to counter Chicks' was indeed weak. However he does often make good points, but his desire to piss on his political enemies usually results in a damp crotch.

Good points generally require sound logic. In the particular instance identified the logic was flawed because of the false equivalency. More often, the premise is flawed and even a logical argument must fail.

Whell reminds me of an expert witness I cross-examined in a trial:

"Q If the union had no responsibility to control the duration of employment by the workers, then your analysis would not be valid with respect to the union?
A Once again, anything's possible in a hypothetical, but I find that to be a red herring.
Q My question is, if the union does not control the duration of employment, is your analysis a valid measure of the union's responsibility?
A You're asking me to agree with a hypothetical that I disagree with based upon what I've read and understand.
Q You have to assume that the union is responsible for the accumulation of all these hours, correct?
A I do assume that for reasons stated.
Q So if your assumption is wrong, then your numbers are wrong?
A No, my numbers are right.
Q If your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong?
A I don't believe my assumptions are wrong.
Q Would you answer the question that I asked?
A If you phrase it that way, I'm forced to agree, but I disagree with what I'm forced to agree with.

We agree with the district court that Dr. Gutman's admission that his analysis assumed [the union] was responsible for the hours accumulated by its members fatally undermines the reliability of Dr. Gutman's analysis and conclusions."

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

The article whell posted to counter Chicks' was indeed weak. However he does often make good points, but his desire to piss on his political enemies usually results in a damp crotch.

Oh, aptly put sir! Aptly put!

(Now in the beginning of that sentence I would strike 'often' and insert 'occasionally.')

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Good points generally require sound logic. In the particular instance identified the logic was flawed because of the false equivalency. More often, the premise is flawed and even a logical argument must fail.

Whell reminds me of an expert witness I cross-examined in a trial:

"Q If the union had no responsibility to control the duration of employment by the workers, then your analysis would not be valid with respect to the union?
A Once again, anything's possible in a hypothetical, but I find that to be a red herring.
Q My question is, if the union does not control the duration of employment, is your analysis a valid measure of the union's responsibility?
A You're asking me to agree with a hypothetical that I disagree with based upon what I've read and understand.
Q You have to assume that the union is responsible for the accumulation of all these hours, correct?
A I do assume that for reasons stated.
Q So if your assumption is wrong, then your numbers are wrong?
A No, my numbers are right.
Q If your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong?
A I don't believe my assumptions are wrong.
Q Would you answer the question that I asked?
A If you phrase it that way, I'm forced to agree, but I disagree with what I'm forced to agree with.

We agree with the district court that Dr. Gutman's admission that his analysis assumed [the union] was responsible for the hours accumulated by its members fatally undermines the reliability of Dr. Gutman's analysis and conclusions."

Well argued, counselor.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

And to think that you challenge the logic employed by others. The person who shot Scalise was an individual with particular political beliefs.

No one gave Scalise's shooter any representative status.

You are a consistent violator of the rules of logic. In this instance, you committed your favorite offense - the false equivalency.

Really??? I'm accused of having neo Nazis as "friends" and told I should apologize for their actions because I "defend" Trump. It's apparently just fine with you to suggest that neo Nazis have "representative status" and suggest that because I hold core beliefs which are no way associated with theirs that I should somehow assume responsibility for them and "apologize" since I don't see you objecting to that.

I then stated that thinking was indeed flawed logic and proceeded to illustrate that by suggesting that those who shared Hodgkinson's beliefs should apologize. This is a rherorical tactic of using absurdity to demonstrate someone else's absurdity.

But what's funny is that you are suggesting that I'm the one with flawed logic, You apparently have no issue with Chicks suggesting that I should "apologize" for a bunch of neo Nazis that I've never met and share no core beliefs in common, and Chicks was serious about it because he "always appologizes".

You're hilarious, couselor.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Good points generally require sound logic. In the particular instance identified the logic was flawed because of the false equivalency. More often, the premise is flawed and even a logical argument must fail.

Whell reminds me of an expert witness I cross-examined in a trial:

"Q If the union had no responsibility to control the duration of employment by the workers, then your analysis would not be valid with respect to the union?
A Once again, anything's possible in a hypothetical, but I find that to be a red herring.
Q My question is, if the union does not control the duration of employment, is your analysis a valid measure of the union's responsibility?
A You're asking me to agree with a hypothetical that I disagree with based upon what I've read and understand.
Q You have to assume that the union is responsible for the accumulation of all these hours, correct?
A I do assume that for reasons stated.
Q So if your assumption is wrong, then your numbers are wrong?
A No, my numbers are right.
Q If your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong?
A I don't believe my assumptions are wrong.
Q Would you answer the question that I asked?
A If you phrase it that way, I'm forced to agree, but I disagree with what I'm forced to agree with.

We agree with the district court that Dr. Gutman's admission that his analysis assumed [the union] was responsible for the hours accumulated by its members fatally undermines the reliability of Dr. Gutman's analysis and conclusions."

Hypothetically speaking ...

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

(Now in the beginning of that sentence I would strike 'often' and insert 'occasionally.')

Apolitical bias versus blue bias.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Apolitical bias versus blue bias.

Nailer bias vs DonQuixote bias I will accept. But I don't think 'apolitical' is quite right.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to what I support. On the other hand, its easy to be you: just be reflexively against everything that the current bunch in charge might do.

Hodgkinson was a Bernie supporter. He was also anti-Trump, so in that regard he has more in common with you and yours. So, where's the apology, since you "always apologize"? I suspect its not forthcoming, which would therefore make you less than honest. No surprise.

Yes, you carefully avoid taking stands on anything. Positive positions might offer targets, after all. And you're here to have fun attacking others, not to defend anything.

So you actually stand for nothing, except for the low pleasure of poking and needling, with a try at a slap now and then.

[JJIII]

You might be mistaking whell for me!

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Nailer bias vs DonQuixote bias I will accept. But I don't think 'apolitical' is quite right.

Apolitical is neither right or left.